Mark Carney’s Davos speech highlights a world in rupture, not transition. Australia needs to rethink its dependence on the United States and begin preparing a credible Plan B.

The Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos made a convincing and diplomatic appeal for a rethink of relations with the United States. He commented: “middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table we’re on the menu… we know the old order is not coming back, we shouldn’t mourn it…nostalgia is not a strategy.. we are in the midst of a rupture not a transition… in a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact”.

Jeffrey Sachs has been very colourful in describing the US/Trump chaos. He said that he was “not sure whether Trump was sane or insane: unhinged and maybe collapsing on the job like former president Biden, Trump is perilous and reckless, gangsterism and thuggery is all on display.”

The Trump behaviour is not new. The US has broken rule after rule in attacking vulnerable and poor countries but this time the US is threatening one of its own, a white NATO country.

We need to carefully and diplomatically disengage from the United States hegemon. World governance is broken. What the US is breaking will not be repaired.

What could be the possible building blocks of Plan B

1 - A former UK PM Harold Macmillan said, “its events my boy, events” and how they are handled is how governments make their mark. We are in the habit of saying yes whenever the US clicks its fingers. Let’s start responding to such crazy ideas as Trump’s Board of Peace for Gaza by quickly and politely saying NO. Or Carney’s speech! Let’s stop dilly dallying for fear we might upset the fragile Trump ego. How we handle events like Carney’s speech is an opportunity to lay down some new markers.

2 - We must tell the United States and the United Kingdom that AUKUS must end. Trump may even privately welcome the end of AUKUS and so provide relief to United States shipyards. There are plenty of off ramps to cancel AUKUS. One off ramp may be provided by the erratic Trump himself. Following his discussions with President Xi last October in Korea, Trump was asked if he saw AUKUS as a deterrent against China. As Laura Tingle of the ABC reported Trump said “yeah I do think it is but I don’t think we’re going to need it. I think we will be just fine with China. China doesn’t want to do that. I don’t see that at all with President Xi. I think we’re going to get along very well as it pertains to Taiwan and others. That doesn’t mean it’s not the apple of his eye cause probably it is, but I don’t see anything happening.”

Clearly, we cannot fund $360 billion for AUKUS, the equivalent of 60 times our annual defence expenditure and develop at the same time a self-reliant defence posture.

An important signal that Prime Minister Albanese could give that AUKUS is under review is to shift Defence Minister Marles to another portfolio where he might do less damage.

3 - If the Trump/Xi relationship develops further with Trump’s visit to China in April, the US might ponder whether it really needs its bases across Northern Australia? These bases may become stranded US military assets. The one asset, however, that the United States values above all others is Pine Gap.

4 - In Plan B we will need to very actively engage with our own region, something we’ve talked about for decades but have never seriously embraced. In December 1995 Paul Keating and President Suharto negotiated an agreement on mutual security. That agreement was later abrogated by Indonesia over East Timor. Fortunately, last November the Australian and Indonesian governments agreed to reinstate a very similar treaty. The treaty will reflect “the close friendship, partnership and deep trust between Australia and Indonesia”. The treaty will be signed shortly. It provides an important opportunity to put some flesh on our vital relationship with Indonesia. As Paul Keating has often put it “we must find security within our region” and not from our region. No strategic or defence relationship is more important than our relationship with Indonesia.

5 - In Plan B we will need to significantly lift our diplomatic capabilities in Asia. Downsizing our representation in Washington and London would help. For far too long our intelligence, security and defence personnel have dominated advice to governments. These agencies have been on a drip feed for decades from Washington and the CIA. They have a lot of information but poor judgement. Our successes in APEC, Cambodia and East Timor show our diplomatic capability when associated with strong ministerial leadership.

6 - Our education and understanding of Asia have seriously declined. This must be reversed in Plan B. We are less Asia-ready then we were 30 years. At the time of the Hawke-Keating governments we were making progress in Asian language learning, media interest in Asia and cultural exchanges. But Asian language learning and education funding at university is in decline. The national policy on Asian languages adopted by the Hawke government and COAG has run into the sand. Most Asian language learning is in crisis. Our legacy media including the ABC is still embedded in our historical relationships with the United Kingdom and the US. The 2000 Henry Report on Australia and the Asian Century was not implemented or seriously resourced. It was dismissed by the Abbott government and expunged from the Prime Minister and Cabinet website.

7 - In Plan B we need to develop a more constructive relationship with China, particularly in such fields as renewable energy and multilateral trade. We have chosen to ignore China’s Belt and Road initiative which now includes more than 150 partner nations. BRICS is supported by five founding countries, India, Brazil, South Africa, China and Russia. Others now include Indonesia and Egypt.

We need to explore other China initiatives. Chandra Nair of the Global Institute for Tomorrow has pointed out that China “recently unveiled one of its most consequential diplomatic proposals, the Global Governance Institute (GGI) which calls for reformed global governance to make it more just, inclusive and effective. Unlike US actions that constantly undermine international institutions the GGI seeks to supplement, not dismantle the UN centred system. China has formally established a group of Friends of Global Governance at the UN comprising 43 founding member states dedicated to reforming global governance”.

This is but one of many recent initiatives that China has proposed, including the Global Development Initiative (2021), Global Security Initiative (2022), and Global Civilisation Initiative (2023). Many countries may not want to be like China. But they know that China shows respect and listens. China has a vision for the future, but the West doesn’t. We close our minds

8—Chas Freeman a distinguished former US Ambassador suggested another option to explore work-arounds and alternatives: “There is nothing to prevent countries from gathering in ad hoc conferences to agree on the application of collective rules and actions that address common concerns. There is nothing to prevent members of the crippled World Trade Organization from recreating its functions at the regional level. There is no reason to allow the ideal of universality to preclude action at less than universal levels to address and resolve problems that most members of the international community regard as urgent. If the UN system, like that of the League of Nations, has failed, it is time to discuss how to repair or replace it.”

Some of these building blocks could be considered in a new White Paper. John McCarthy a former Australian senior ambassador suggested the “commissioning of a new White Paper on external policies with input from all relevant agencies. We must think more about self-reliance, our regional role and what middle powers can do to save or replace the furniture in the international system. And crucially the paper should examine the place and weight of the (US) alliance in our external outlook. This is not as sinful as it sounds. We had an ANZUS review in 1983. Different times, different politics. But the precedent is there.”

Underlying our alliance with the United States is of course our fear of China, fomented almost every day by China hawks in our media and think tanks. Or “ning-nongs” as Paul Keating described them.

China does not have a Monroe or Donroe Doctrine like the US which looks at China in its rear vision mirror and expects that China will behave in the same way violent way as the United States has acted for two centuries.

China does not want to replace the US, but it wants diplomatic space for its own secure development. What gives it particular determination is not only its remarkable civilisation but is resolute that China will never again experience the humiliation of westerners and Japan plundering their country.

China has not engaged in military activity outside its borders for over 40 years. It has not the intent or the capability to attack Australia. Neither does it have a history of military activity beyond the defence of its borders. China has a large and diverse population in areas such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan. It has land borders with 14 other countries. China focuses on domestic issues and the protection of its borders. If China was an imperial power, it would have swallowed up defenceless Mongolia long ago, a small democratic and mineral rich state on its border.

We do need a Plan B.

But does our centre right political leadership – Albanese, Wong and Marles – have foresight and courage? They have refused to name the genocide in Gaza. Will they go to ground as usual and hope that they can keep their heads down until Trump is hopefully gone in three years’ time?

But they could seize the moment that the crazed Trump is forcing upon the world.

The US alliance must be refashioned for the world today.